The Net Generation (born 1978 to 1994), digital natives or neomillenials, as they have been termed (Dede, 2005), expect to move within the virtual environment and to include their learning there. Interest in the student demographic of age appears to stem from Prensky’s (2001) theory of the digital native/immigrant dichotomy. By 2009 he had refuted this theory and spoke of the distinction becoming obsolete with the lengthening era of digital technology and that digital wisdom would become the goal (Prensky, 2009). In the meantime, the Net Generation had been examined at length in a series of qualitative studies by educators anxious to place context around their learning requirements (Brown, 2005; Gibbons, 2007; Lippincott, 2008b; Kennedy, et al., 2007; McNeill, Diao, & Gosper, 2011; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001). It has been claimed “Convenience, connection and control are the factors driving the Net Generation’s take up of information and communication technologies” (Borreson Caruso, 2004, cited in Goerke & Oliver, 2007, p. 64). Institutions planning implementation of mobile learning have surveyed students on which devices they are using, how these are being used, and issues relating to delivery of learning resources and activities (Gray, Kennedy, Waycott, Dalgarno, Bennett, Chang, … & Krause 2009). A 360° report on the status of mobile learning confirmed that students of all age groups who used mobile devices rated access to entertainment the highest type of usage, while mobile learning rated the lowest (E-Learning Guild, 2008). The use of mobile devices for recreation and work-related activities other than teaching and learning activities emerges in a range of studies of staff and students (Corbell & Valdes-Corbell, 2007).
Library studies into student culture are well documented across the HE sector, again, fewer have been completed within the further education (FE) sector (Gibbs, 2005) and no comparative studies have been undertaken across the VET sector. The implications may be extrapolated, however. The importance for both faculty and support staff to understand the student culture within their own institution has been stressed by a number of researchers (Booth, 2009; Cummings, Merrill, & Borrelli, 2010; Gibbons, 2007; Gosper et al., 2013; Kennedy, et al., 2007; Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, & Krayse, 2008; Kuh, 2003; Lippincott, 2008a; Smith & Borreson Caruso, 2010). The conclusions from these studies have urged the necessity for policy makers not to make assumptions on student engagement with technology without either including students in decision-making or gaining an accurate picture of their academic and social practices. Surveys of HE students by libraries, either directly or through website analytics, have revealed students interacting with library
43
resources and services but not always in the ways library staff might have predicted (Booth, 2009; Mills, 2009; Paterson & Low, 2011; Sheikh & Mills, 2012; Smith & Borreson Caruso, 2010; Wilson & McCarthy, 2010). Findings have indicated a range of awareness levels in student interaction with the library, with some students showing awareness of library services accessible from mobile devices, while others reveal little awareness.
Booth’s empirical, qualitative study investigating student interest in emerging library technologies specifically aimed to create an accurate picture of the library culture of the institution’s students and defined this as “consisting of student attitudes, perceptions, needs and expectations on respect to library facilities and information resources” (2009, p. 67). The student library culture Booth discovered showed some unexpected facets with younger students, although heavy users of mobile and social tools, not associating using these for educational purposes. Similar findings have emerged from other studies such as at the Rector Gabriel Ferraté Library where mobile devices were being used for social purposes, or to book a group study room or laptop, but not for searching library resources (Benítez Juan, Clavero Campos, Codina Vila, & Pérez Gálvez, 2011). Kennedy et al. (2007) found that first year students at three Australian universities did not engage with technologies to the extent predicted, although older students were more likely to be receptive to library technology even though they did not engage with technology to the same degree as their younger colleagues.
The ECAR investigation of undergraduate students and information technology also revealed age-related differences in students had less impact on technology usage, that technology adoption was strongly associated with use and experience of IT both in general and in the academic context. Students were creating and sharing content, using social, interactive communication tools, and showing a preference for using both the library website and the learning management system with a desire for moderate IT component within courses (Smith & Borreson Caruso, 2010). Other research has found varying degrees of student enthusiasm for accessing mobile library services (Cummings et al., 2010; Dresselhaus & Shrode, 2012; Wilson & McCarthy, 2010). This should act as a warning to any library staff of the “if we build it they will come” school of thought (Booth, 2009, p. 11) and emphasise that collection of accurate information on student patrons can result in improved service delivery and save time, money, effort and disappointment. In general, what emerges from student responses is a requirement that library services are relevant to their immediate needs, easy to use and free from technical problems.
44 2.4.1 Technology Ownership
The literature indicates that students entering higher education regard their mobile devices as an integral part of contemporary life and expect to be able to use them without undue hindrance. Of critical immediacy for education programme and support service planners is gathering accurate information on the types of devices tertiary-level students use, how and why they use them and their expectations of educational leverage of these devices. Such information is not available for the VET sectors across Australia and New Zealand.
Lack of empirical evidence upon which to base decision-making around student use of technologies has resulted in a growing field of research in the area (Beckmann, 2010; Booth, 2009; Gosper et al., 2013; Kennedy, Judd et al., 2008; Margaryan et al., 2011; Smith & Borreson Caruso, 2010). The qualitative studies have revealed growing use of mobile devices by students across all institutions surveyed. A 2010 study of undergraduates at 127 higher education institutes in the US and Canada revealed that 62.7% of the 36,950 students surveyed reported owning an internet-capable handheld device (Smith & Borreson Caruso, 2010, p. 9). Mills (2009) found over 60% of survey respondents at the Open University (UK) and Cambridge University owned internet-capable mobile devices (2009, p. 7), and Cummings et al. (2010, p. 29), surveying students at Washington State University, found 54.9% had either or both a web-enabled cell phone or a PDA. Smartphone ownership by Ryerson University students was 20% in 2008 and was expected to rise to around 80% by the end of 2011 (Wilson & McCarthy, 2010), while in 2011, Edinburgh University students reported 67% smartphone ownership rate (Paterson & Low, 2011). A survey of students at Macquarie University, the University of Western Sydney and the University of Technology, Sydney showed 50% students using internet-enabled mobile phones (Gosper et al., 2013), and an earlier study had shown Australian first-year students were not using technologies as intensively as expected (Kennedy, Judd et al., 2008). The trends predicted within the studies, particularly where longitudinal data collection was planned, suggest that the number of students owning a smartphone will continue to grow rapidly.
2.4.2 Library Service Expectations
The student library use survey results discussed following relate to higher education and cannot be compared to the VET sector without similar investigations being carried out for accurate comparison. However, it is likely that strong comparisons exist.
Studies of student use of mobile library services have, to date, revealed mixed results. The universities of Cambridge (Mills, 2009), Edinburgh (Paterson & Low, 2011), Washington State (Cummings et al., 2010), Ohio (Booth, 2009) and the California Digital Library (Hu &
45
Meier, 2010) found approximately half their student library users were interested in accessing the library catalogue. Ohio University’s qualitative survey results showed students searching the library website for database articles, books and journals and DVDs and music. They were more likely to use specific library technologies such as toolbars, Facebook and SMS than MySpace or web calling. Older and graduate students were more likely to engage in the services described. Far from being indifferent to their lack of library awareness, results revealed students were either pleasantly surprised or slightly offended to realize how little they knew about library services (Booth, 2009, p. 95). Ryerson University Library learned its students used internet-enabled mobile devices for email, Facebook and browsing the internet. They preferred to make calls, texts, take photographs and listen to music (Wilson & McCarthy, 2010). The University of Edinburgh library, yet to develop mobile services, discovered students were not interested in reading or writing reviews, sharing items, using library maps, receiving alerts or library statistics. However, students undertook mobile activities in a variety of locations; they multitasked with related and unrelated library tasks while they were in the library and were enthusiastic about the idea of mobile library services (Paterson & Low, 2011, pp. 420-1). The Patron Profiles report, published biennially on use of academic online library resources by students, found 24.5% were regular users, with 44.4% occasional users. Students mainly used online services for research and assignments (59%), with preference for accessing e-books, online databases and journals (around 80% for all three services) (Library Journal, & Patron Profiles, 2012). The study across three Sydney universities found students preferred to use well-established technologies such as Google search engines, text or SMS messaging, email and voice calls in their everyday life for social and work purposes (Gosper et al., 2013, p. 276).
The library website is a crucial focus for students seeking information. Several qualitative studies showed a similarity in searching behaviour by their students, for example, 89% Ohio University respondents reported having visited the library website while 11% had never done so (Booth, 2009, p. 67). Likewise, the research study by Smith and Borreson Caruso found 94.2% students engaged with their university/college website (2010, p. 57). Breakdown of library website use revealed 71.8% of students accessed the library catalogue at least once per term. These findings compare closely with the Washington State University library survey which found, of those students who used the library catalogue most months, 54% indicated willingness to access the library OPAC using a mobile device, while 46% responded negatively (Cummings et al., 2010, p. 30). The study showed students were slightly more interested in undertaking research for an assignment via mobile device, with 64.4% showing interest and 35.6% unlikely to do so. Additionally, 56.7% students were
46
likely to search via mobile device for electronic books and journal articles while 43.3% were unlikely.
Students preferred mobile library services to be of immediate relevance to their study needs. University of Edinburgh students clearly indicated their preference for certain mobile library services intended to optimise their user experience, with 93% of students believing searching the library catalogue as a mobile service to be of use and 90% also keen to be able to search library databases (Paterson & Low, 2011, p. 418).). These findings varied from results from Cambridge and Open Universities, where 55% of students wanted the ability to access the OPAC from their mobile device (2009, p. 8) but virtually no students were interested in the ability to access e-books and e-journals from mobile devices, with 90% expressing lack of interest in such services (2009, p. 9). Her recommendation was not to put development resources into delivering such content to mobile devices at present. A study of handheld device use by first year students at Curtin University showed students disengaging from using the devices through institutional ICT infrastructure failures. The PDA devices were judged inconvenient, limiting creativity and costly while the poor wireless connectivity added to the overall result of students ceasing to use the devices for educational purposes (Goerke & Oliver, 2007, p. 64).
What seems to be emerging from the research on mobile service expectations is that students differentiated between using their mobile devices for social needs and learning (Gosper et al., 2013; McNeill et al., 2011). In general, they demonstrated interest in services that were perceived as being of immediate relevance to their learning. The findings discussed above demonstrate quite clearly that students at higher education institutions had not commenced using mobile library services quickly despite having the technical means to do so.